This case involved a Claimant who was employed as the street lighting and draining manager of a council for 37 years.   The issue leading to his dismissal was irregularities that had taken place in a tendering process.  The Claimant had had interactions with one of the bidding companies (who happened to be the winning company). These interactions related to seeing pricing documents from the current provider as well as assisting an employee of that tendering company to receive rugby tickets. Within the process, the Claimant had asked at the time to be removed from the process as his son was hospitalised at the time. He was told that he could not be excused as he was the only person with any expertise relating to street lighting.  These irregularities led to action being taken against the Council by another bidder.  This action was subsequently settled for a ‘substantial’ amount of compensation.

As a result of the action being taken, the Respondent opened an internal investigation into the matter and the Claimant co-operated.  He met with the auditors several times before being signed off on long-term sick.  At that point he was not asked to attend any more meetings. This investigation led to disciplinary proceedings being started against the Claimant.  This was in relation to his knowledge of commercial information and his failure to inform the legal department of sharing the pricing documents or the situation involving the rugby tickets.  The Claimant did not attend due to his ill-health.  He was subsequently dismissed in September 2017.

The Tribunal found that the investigation that led to the Claimant’s dismissal was fundamentally flawed.   The reason for dismissal could be regarded as fair but it was argued that no reasonable employer would have ever come to the conclusion that the Claimant had acted dishonestly or committed gross misconduct through the evidence that had been collected.  This was especially true considering that the Claimant was never informed that he was being investigated for dishonesty or fraud, thus removing his right to respond to such allegations.

The fact that the Claimant had asked his line manager whether he should have received the pricing information and that he was informed that it was fine was a factor to be considered as to whether it reasonable to dismiss. A further factor was that the Claimant had never been trained in handing tenders.  As a result, it was held that the procedure undertaken leading to the dismissal was unfair.  The Tribunal ordered that the Claimant be reinstated as well as £100,618 in lost wages.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates that the investigation that takes part in the disciplinary process is of fundamental importance.  The investigation should gather all of the evidence that would make it reasonable to take a decision to dismiss an employee.  Notwithstanding disciplinary processes, it demonstrates the importance in retaining evidence such as minutes from meetings and other incidental documentation. This may provide some protection for employers when they open an investigation and make the evidence gathering process much easier.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-thornhill-v-london-borough-of-camden-2200088-2018